Margaret,
It is up to the WG Chairs, Bob and Brian, to put together an
implementation report. In this particular case, this may only involve
pointing at the old implementation report and explaining why the changes
in this document do not warrant gathering further implementation data. I
will w
> On Sun, 15 May 2005 11:17:49 -0400,
> Margaret Wasserman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> I've asked related questions about this comment on the wg list two
>> times, including requested information at the Minneapolis meeting, but
>> I've not got any responses...if this comment does not req
> On Sat, 14 May 2005 02:57:33 +0900,
> JINMEI Tatuya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> As I answered at this list, 2461bis and 2462bis should be updated at
> the same timing, so we'll eventually need to wait for 2461bis to be
> approved. If we reach the point, please just keep 2461bis sleepin
Hi Jinmei,
At 2:57 AM +0900 5/14/05, JINMEI Tatuya /
=?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCP0BMQEMjOkgbKEI=?= wrote:
I've asked related questions about this comment on the wg list two
times, including requested information at the Minneapolis meeting, but
I've not got any responses...if this comment does not require
Hi Margaret,
A new version of the rfc2462bis draft is now available, in which I
believe I've resolved all IESG comments except this one from Allison:
No updated implementation report; I'd like to see reporting in
there of the basis for the dropping of the Managed bit, which is
stated in
